Peoria police overwhelmingly vote no confidence in chief

Thursday

Peoria police union members showed up in huge numbers during a recent vote of no confidence against Police Chief Steven Settingsgaard.

Peoria police union members showed up in huge numbers during a recent vote of no confidence against Police Chief Steven Settingsgaard.

Eighty-eight percent of eligible members of the Peoria Police Benevolent cast votes Monday, with 187 of the 212 voters stating they had no confidence in the chief, who has been in the position since 2005.

The vote stems not only from recent problems with work schedules and seniority but "is something that has been coming for quite some time," said Benevolent president Troy Skaggs during a news conference outside City Hall on Wednesday.

The vote, which was brought up by members at a special union meeting called to address recent complaints, was the highest turnout in the union's history - even more than any contract ratifications - Skaggs said. Only one other time has the union voted no confidence, in 1993 when it cast the vote against the Ken Rippy command structure.

"This vote clearly demonstrates that this dissatisfaction is widespread and has affected every division of the Peoria Police Department," he said.

Flanked by about 10 officers, Skaggs mentioned some of the larger problems, including "staffing issues, work schedules, continued and repeated attempts to circumvent seniority rights and unfair, unjust and un-sustained disciplinary actions," such as the firings of Marshall Dunnigan and Troy Parker. Both terminations were reversed by an arbitrator.

A no-confidence vote is not binding but does serve as a very severe criticism, said Joe Berry, Labor Education specialist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

"It's a public expression of dissatisfaction that is meant to put some pressure on the leadership with the idea that they should have some democratic obligation to those under them," Berry said.

Very seldom would an administrator be forced out or leave solely on a vote of no confidence, Berry said, however, it's a rare situation that "is no small thing."

The union plans to release a more detailed statement - seven to 10 pages, Skaggs said - addressing the union's concerns.

Settingsgaard said in a news release that, as chief, he bears the responsibility "of balancing the needs of the community against the needs of individual officers" and that at times, he "must ask the officers to put aside their own interests and make sacrifices for the good of the people they serve."

"This burden comes with leadership and to lead, I must make these decisions even when I know it will make me unpopular among my own officers."

Settingsgaard said he had a meeting Monday with members of his management and the union to discuss the changes, some of which prompted the no-confidence vote. At the end of that meeting, the two sides agreed to consider each other's issues and scheduled another meeting for this Monday. However, that same night, the benevolent held the special meeting and the no-confidence vote was taken.

"As for openness and communication," Settingsgaard said, "I was not invited to the meeting, and I was not given an opportunity to answer any allegations or explain my position."

After news of the vote became public, the union again made plans to discuss the matter with Settingsgaard at the scheduled meeting Monday.

"The following day, after their press release saying that they would have no further statement and that they would discuss the matters with me at the Monday meeting, Troy Skaggs requests an impromptu meeting (with the media) to again discuss these issues, but not discuss them prior to the scheduled meeting for which we had all cleared our calendars and were prepared for," Settingsgaard said.

Skaggs commented at the news conference that Settingsgaard had "refused to meet with us" on Tuesday, which "is not the act of a man who is concerned with the interest and well-being of the men and women who work for him."

Settingsgaard said his door has been open to all officers, "more than it probably should have been."

"If there is one thing that no one can legitimately accuse me of, it is not being open and available," he said. "All had my cell phone number and the ability to call me."

Settingsgaard said he's disappointed the union chose to take the vote and also "in the manner in which the vote was held," as he was told officers were pressured to vote over the phone. Skaggs said some officers voted by phone, but voluntarily.

Settingsgaard said the dispute will not affect police efforts in the community, calling his officers "the most highly skilled and highly professional officers I have ever known."

"As for my performance as the chief," he added, "I will continue to pursue positive change and seek to improve our service, and I will not leave well enough alone because well enough is not good enough."

Skaggs said the union is willing to work with Settingsgaard and dismissed the idea that its members were seeking his dismissal outright.

Erinn Deshinsky can be reached at (309) 686-3112 or edeshinsky@pjstar.com.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.